Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Routh. In the resolution that NAIRO adopted in Chicago, which is the official position of the association, we asked that it be retained in Commerce at this time until the Department of Housing and Urban Development was sufficiently staffed and viable to accept it.

So that is the official position of my association. If you are asking me personally

Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, personally. There has been a change. It could very well be pointed out that HUD itself has many problems that will require supervision, enforcement such as the question of housing, and all the problems of the cities. Then you might place HUD in a function where it would not only be supervising and enforcing its own provisions, but also other Departments like HEW, Labor, Commerce. So HUD might not be the place. The argument of the Attorney General is that basically they have civil rights functions as a whole, and they would be in a position of overseeing

all the other agencies of the Government. Do you think that is a valid argument?

Mr. Routh. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that HUD will concentrate as much on urban development–indeed, even more than it does on housing, as it assumes its proper role. Since something like 70 percent of our people now live in urban areas, it will have a tremendous responsibility with the vast majority of our population. I do not think that the concept of putting the Community Relations Service there is a mistake.

It seems to me that most of the problems which have existed in this area of community relations, exists in our urban communities. I think the role, for instance, of the Community Relations Service this past summer, when they sent representatives into some dozen cities of the United States, demonstrated the value of that type of activity in the major centers of population of the country.

It seems to me this a responsibility primarily of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and this is, I think, why the body meeting in Chicago felt that HUD was the logical place to place this service.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, you feel that as civil rights will develop, that it more and more will become a problem of the cities as against problems of the southern part of our country?

Mr. Routh. Well, I would not want to leave the South out by any means, because many of our cities are in the South, the problems that are developing in many of our southern cities, particularly the newer ones-such as, say Miami, Jacksonville, and even Atlanta-are the same problems that exist in the large urban centers of the North.

The housing patterns, for instance, of the newer southern cities are more akin to those of the large northern cities than they are to the old southern cities, such as Charleston, S.C., or some of the cities like Savannah, Ga., or Mobile, Ala., where you have what is referred to down there as—a “salt and pepper” housing pattern. It is pretty well integrated, though if you told the local people that they might react rather emotionally to it.

I can see the Community Relations Service being placed in the executive branch of the Government, having direct access to the President of the United States.

ful to you.

I say this as an individual, and not representing my association. But let me also point out the association said this in 1961 in its memorandum to President Kennedy.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you.
Senator Javits?

Senator Javits. First, Mr. Routh, I thank you very much for appearing. My office requested your appearance, and we are very grate

Then yours is the principal organization, am I right about that, of those who are employed by the intergroup relations agencies in the respective States? Is that right? Mr. ROUTH. Yes, sir. We are a professional association made up

of individuals, not of agencies.

Senator Javits. And you have got 1,400 members, 17 chapters.
Mr. Routh. That is right.
Senator Javits. May we have a list of the location of the chapters?
Mr. ROUTH. Yes, sir; I will be glad to provide one.

Senator JAVITS. May we also have any kind of a schedule that you would like to make up for us—if it is not taxing you too muchwhich will graphically show what you testified to about the location of the intergroup agencies in respective States and cities?

Mr. ROUTH. I will be glad to do so.
Senator JAVITS. With the cooperation of the staff.
I ask unanimous consent that that may be made part of the record.
Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection.

Keep in mind we have a problem of 60 days, getting it as soon as possibỈe. We do not want to foreclose Senator Javits.

(The document referred to follows:)

EXHIBIT 2 STATES WITH OFFICIAL COMMISSIONS DEALING WITH INTERGROUP RELATIONS

PROBLEMS

(Names of Commissions vary) 1. Alaska

17. Missouri 2. Arizona

18. Nebraska 3. California

19. Nevada 4. Colorado

20. New Jersey 5. Connecticut

21. New Mexico 6. Delaware

22. New York 7. Hawaii

23. Ohio 8. Illinois

24. Oklahoma 9. Indiana

25. Oregon 10. Iowa

26. Pennsylvania 11. Kansas

27. Rhode Island 12. Kentucky

28. Tennessee 13. Maryland

29. Washington 14. Massachusetts

30. West Virginia 15. Michigan

31. Wisconsin 16. Minnesota

32. Wyoming Senator Javits. Mr. Chairman, may I say Mr. Nobleman's memorandum is a splendid job, very professional, and I compliment him and the committee on it.

Senator RIBICOFF. We are proud of it. We will acknowledge that, Mr. Nobleman.

Do you have any questions?

Senator HARRIS. No further questions.
Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you.
Mr. Seidman, please.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD SEIDMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

Mr. SEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement, and with your permission I will proceed.

I appreciate this opportunity to testify before this committee in support of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966, which the President transmitted to the Congress on February 10, 1966.

The reorganization plan would transfer the Community Relations Service, including the office of its Director, from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Justice, and would transfer the functions of the Service and of its Director to the Attorney General. The President's objectives in transmitting the reorganization plan can best be explained by relating the plan to prior Presidential action.

Over several years prior to 1964 a number of agencies and interagency committees, established either by law or Executive order, were given functions in the area of civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 greatly expanded both Federal responsibilities and the number of departments and agencies with major enforcement functions.

As efforts were made to implement the act, the need for improvement in executive branch organization and coordination became increasingly apparent. Accordingly, late in 1964 the President asked the newly elected Vice President to review the situation and make recommendations to him.

On February 5, 1965, pursuant to an interim report from the Vice President, the President issued Executive Order 11197, designed to strengthen Federal civil rights efforts and to improve interagency coordination. The order established the President's Council on Equal Opportunity, chaired by the Vice President, and, among other functions, gave the Council broad coordinating responsibilities.

It also directed the Council to recommend to the President such changes in administrative structure and relationships, including those for merger, combination, or elimination of agencies, committees, or other bodies, or duplicative authority within the Federal Establishment, as might be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the order and to coordinate the relevant activities of Federal departments and agencies. Under that directive the effort to develop long-range improvements, initiated earlier by the Vice President, was continued in consultation with the interested agencies.

The Vice President's memorandum transmitting to the President his final recommendations for changes in administrative structure was incorporated in a White House press release of September 24, 1965. To strengthen the operation and direction of civil rights programs and at the same time eliminate confusion and duplication, the Vice President recommended several reorganizations, which the President approved.

Insofar as possible, the reorganizations were accomplished promptly by Executive order.

On September 24, 1965, the President issued Executive Orders 11246 and 11247, which reorganized certain civil rights functions of executive agencies previously provided for by Executive order.

Executive Order 11246 abolished the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and transferred its coordinating responsibilities to the Secretary of Labor with respect to employment under Federal contracts and to the Civil Service Commission with respect to direct Federal employment.

Executive Order 11247 abolished the President's Council on Equal Opportunity and directed the Attorney General to assist Federal agencies in coordinating their enforcement efforts under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That title prohibits discrimination in any program or activity which receives Federal financial assistance. Over 20 Federal agencies provide such assistance and therefore have enforcement responsibilities under title VI.

I think this fact should be emphasized, because this problem has come up with respect to the role of the Department of Justice. Each of the Federal agencies which administer programs under title VI also have law enforcement responsibilities, and the actions which they may take under that section may have very significant impact on either State or local government or on individuals.

The President's objectives in issuing the orders were to simplify executive branch organization and eliminate duplication; to strengthen enforcement efforts, and to improve coordination of the civil rights activities of all Federal agencies. Each order eliminated an agency previously established by Executive order and placed its coordinating functions in a permanent agency which had related functions.

The reorganization plan before you would further the President's objectives by enabling the Attorney General to coordinate the activities of the Community Relations Service and activities of other Federal agencies. This authority would complement the coordinating responsibility with respect to title VI activities, assigned to the Attorney General under Executive Order 11247. Agency regulations giving effect to title VI have significant implications with respect to the conciliation activities of the Community Relations Service because they require agencies administering title VI to promote voluntary compliance with that title.

Although a troubled community typically has a broad range of interlocking civil rights problems, experience has shown that community disputes often are triggered by unrest in a specific area, such as school desegregation, rather than discriminatory practices in general.

When a community dispute threatens in the future some Federal agency, perhaps more than one agency, usually will have received complaints of unlawful discrimination under title VI with respect to the specific area at issue. An agency's regulations under that title would require the agency to investigate the situation, and where discrimination is found, to seek to achieve voluntary compliance. In such a situation we believe the need is obvious for close coordination between that agency and the Community Relations Service.

Under the reorganization plan the Attorney General, already responsible for Government-wide coordination under title VI, would be able to provide for such coordination. Effective coordination in such situations will expedite the resolution of local problems and contribute greatly to effective administration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To the extent CRS participation is not required, its staff will be freed for action in other situations not susceptible of resolution under title VI.

The transfer of the Community Relations Service to Justice also will give the Attorney General additional and expert staff resources to assist him in assuring effective efforts to obtain voluntary compliance with all civil rights legislation. Such efforts, of course, will not always be successful, but I am sure the members of this committee will agree that the desirable rate of progress toward equal opportunity for all citizens cannot be achieved solely through the slow processes of court action. Progress must be made chiefly by mobilizing community leadership to act voluntarily in eliminating discriminatory practices and to build a climate of public opinion in support of civil rights.

This approach has brought significant progress in the past; it must be used to full advantage in the future—both to expedite progress and to avoid unnecessary and costly litigation.

In the area of civil rights, the Department of Justice, like State or local regulatory agencies in the civil rights field, has long sought to achieve voluntary compliance with those laws or parts of laws for which it has sole enforcement responsibility, as in the area of voting rights.

The recently authorized program of grants-in-aid to assist other governmental jurisdictions in strengthening their law enforcement efforts gives the Department a new responsibility under title VI in the sensitive area of police-community relations.

As the principal law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, however, the Attorney General's responsibility necessarily extends beyond those areas in which he has sole enforcement responsibility.

In the vast majority of cases the Department represents the Government in any court action, regardless of the agency in which the action originates, and he has a coordinating responsibility with respect to other court actions. This Government-wide responsibility of the Attorney General with respect to law enforcement generally was recognized by the President in directing him to assist other agencies in coordinating their enforcement actions under title VI.

A part of the Attorney General's responsibility is to assure appropriate effort to achieve voluntary compliance before legal enforcement actions are initiated. The transfer of the Community Relations Service to Justice will enable the Attorney General, through his broad knowledge of developments in the entire field of civil rights, to assure that the Community Relations Service has the opportunity to make its full contribution in resolving any civil rights problem before legal enforcement action is initiated and also that its energies will be spent on matters of greatest urgency,

Fears have been expressed that the reorganization plan would weaken the conciliation efforts of the Community Relations Service, because the plan would transfer the CRS to a law enforcement agency. We do not believe such fears to be justified. On the contrary, close coordination between conciliation and enforcement is essential. To be success

« PreviousContinue »